Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Calling some else's position "nonsense" because don't like it and not worth "discussing" reeks of Fascism - dictating what can be discussed. To not even going to listen to a different point of view shows a closed mind but even then you continue the argument - peppered with opinion (interventionist, losing war, Ponzi scheme, etc) not facts. You are already a lost cause, mind made up, never going to change so why bother - maybe because others read this "nonsense".
Fascism is imposing your military on other ethnicities around the world for your economic benefit. I'm just acknowledging the limits of my ability to deprogram people in a forum thread about the debt ceiling. If you're going to insist that we need to spend billions on aircraft carriers to bomb foreigners or communists or space aliens for "national security" then you're deep down the rabbit hole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasperhobbs
The debt ceiling is never mentioned when the Republicans are the majority.
If it were enforced then it would end the government so lack of enforcement is probably a good thing, if you're a pro-government liberal.
VA is NOT military retirement benefits - look it up. I don't provide VA spending, congress does, but it doesn't go to defense budget. Military pensions do come out of the military budget.
Again, you clearly do not know what I profess - I clearly DID NOT say anything about "murdering people in other countries" or viewing "foreign relations through military action" - my views are quite the opposite. You need to quit attributing stuff I NEVER said as my position. You clearly have an agenda and seem to want to pigeonhole me by making stuff up.
You really don't understand China nor advanced weaponry - Your lack of knowledge about what you think is true is astounding. You seem to want to ignore the actual benefits of military spending and the drag on the economy of excess spending in other areas - that is just a symptom of someone that is closed of to even listening to another position supported by the actual data. You continue to push an opinion / supposition without any data to back it - that is just nonsense.
This isnt retirement benefits?:
"The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is responsible for providing vital services to America's veterans. VA provides health care services, benefits programs and access to national cemeteries to former military personnel and their dependants."
Im not sure if you are just playing semantics or what but either way, it is benefits to former military employees. That is military spending. How else would you categorize spending on former military employees?
I want to drastically reduce mililtary spending and as a response to that you claim that I am an isolationist. How else should I interpret that other than you viewing military activities as the only way we interact with foreign nations?
I understand China and advanced weaponry. China can direct a large volley of missiles at an aircraft carrier assuring its destruction. This isnt some crazy theory of mine, it is common knowledge. In a military conflict with a more advanced adversary like China or Russia, the US military's aircraft carriers would sent to the bottom of the sea in no time. Military is corrupt spending as well as a redistribution of wealth towards people who have no special privelege to have it over anyone else. Above a certain point, it is no better than any other form of wasteful spending except it has the added issue of being used for incredible amounts of evil.
Im not sure if you are just playing semantics or what but either way, it is benefits to former military employees. That is military spending. How else would you categorize spending on former military employees?
You're supposed to discard soldiers in the trash once they've completed the Lord's work of defending capital's interests overseas, not pay for the fallout of their sacrifices like some bleeding-heart chump.
"The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is responsible for providing vital services to America's veterans. VA provides health care services, benefits programs and access to national cemeteries to former military personnel and their dependants."
Im not sure if you are just playing semantics or what but either way, it is benefits to former military employees. That is military spending. How else would you categorize spending on former military employees?
I want to drastically reduce mililtary spending and as a response to that you claim that I am an isolationist. How else should I interpret that other than you viewing military activities as the only way we interact with foreign nations?
I understand China and advanced weaponry. China can direct a large volley of missiles at an aircraft carrier assuring its destruction. This isnt some crazy theory of mine, it is common knowledge. In a military conflict with a more advanced adversary like China or Russia, the US military's aircraft carriers would sent to the bottom of the sea in no time. Military is corrupt spending as well as a redistribution of wealth towards people who have no special privelege to have it over anyone else. Above a certain point, it is no better than any other form of wasteful spending except it has the added issue of being used for incredible amounts of evil.
It is not just semantics - the VA is for supporting Veterans - those injured while serving, most whom were never retired. Military Retirement is a status, 20+ years of service. Most retired military have little to no contact with the VA. It is like disability benefits but targeted at those injured in combat.
Military spending is military obligation, the VA is societal obligation cost. Do we count unemployment costs or disability benefits as part of a corporations costs, is it on their balance sheet - no. How would you categorize former employees of a business?
What you want (drastically reduce military spending) shows a complete lack of understanding - cutting without knowledge is just an action without a plan - just silly. Cutting off interactions and other countries military support is isolationist, we work with other countries to make both better - far from the only way we interact (again something I never said so really disingenuous to suggest I did) but an important one.
Again, your understanding of weapons is way off from reality - your "common knowledge" is from mediareports that doesn't know the first thing about military weapons. If the reports were true though sounds like need to spend more not less on defense. China might get lucky and take out a carrier but that means that the best use of the military has not worked, have enough power to keep the other guy from shooting. Just understand that after they fire on a carrier, whether it is sunk or not - 11 more are waiting and will take out their entire force.
The rest is just crap out of the socialist handbook - your comments of "corrupt spending", "redistribution of wealth", "privilege", "wasteful spending" and finally "incredible amounts of evil" - just shows what your real objective is, turn the US into a socialist wasteland.
This is way way off topic - it has zero to do with treasury getting rid of debt ceiling - that realistically can not do without changes to the constitution.
It is not just semantics - the VA is for supporting Veterans - those injured while serving, most whom were never retired. Military Retirement is a status, 20+ years of service. Most retired military have little to no contact with the VA. It is like disability benefits but targeted at those injured in combat.
Military spending is military obligation, the VA is societal obligation cost. Do we count unemployment costs or disability benefits as part of a corporations costs, is it on their balance sheet - no. How would you categorize former employees of a business?
What you want (drastically reduce military spending) shows a complete lack of understanding - cutting without knowledge is just an action without a plan - just silly. Cutting off interactions and other countries military support is isolationist, we work with other countries to make both better - far from the only way we interact (again something I neever said so really disingenuous to suggest I did) but an important one.
Again, your understanding of weapons is way off from reality - your "common knowledge" is from mediareports that doesn't know the first thing about military weapons. If the reports were true though sounds like need to spend more not less on defense. China might get lucky and take out a carrier but that means that the best use of the military has not worked, have enough power to keep the other guy from shooting. Just understand that after they fire on a carrier, whether it is sunk or not - 11 more are waiting and will take out their entire force.
The rest is just crap out of the socialist handbook - your comments of "corrupt spending", "redistribution of wealth", "privilege", "wasteful spending" and finally "incredible amounts of evil" - just shows what your real objective is, turn the US into a socialist wasteland.
This is way way off topic - it has zero to do with treasury getting rid of debt ceiling - that realistically can not do without changes to the constitution.
So you say its not semantics and then go on to explain semantics. So they arent formally retired, they are former military employees. It is a military obligation and so a military cost. Unemployment expense is a cost of doing business, my company pays for it and we consider it our cost. I feel like this line of discussion is ridiculous, its obvious that money paid for former military employees counts towards military expenses. Trying to shift it to a separate agency doesnt change that fact.
I feel like I read about the military a lot and pay very close attention to everything they do. Cutting military spending isnt isolationist and it also doesnt make anybody worse off except the military industrial complex. If you want, we can shift 50% of the cut to actually working positively with other nations, would that make you happy or you only want to fund the part that kills people in other nations? I like to cut government down but even moreso I feel a certain moral obligation to not want innocent people to get killed. So I would get satisfaction if we shifted that money to more positive uses even if I dont get the full spending cut. But no, deemo needs to see dead bodies in some muslim nation thousands of miles away from the US, dead bodies of people that never did anything to the US and never were a threat to do anything to the US. That is a great foreign policy according to deemo.
Where does your military knowledge come from? Just do some googling around and you will see plenty of credible sources telling you that an advanced military can fire a bunch of missiles and take out your aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers are for making war on poor nations incapable of defending themselves. The US has used this to keep the military at arms length from the US population while spending tons of money and raking in corrupt money.
You are the socialist, not me buddy. There is nothing more socialist than the US military. I actually want government so small that you can squish it like a bug. You want big government that can do whatever it wants. Funny how the big government lover is calling someone who wants to shrink government a socialist, look in the mirror.
So you say its not semantics and then go on to explain semantics. So they arent formally retired, they are former military employees. It is a military obligation and so a military cost. Unemployment expense is a cost of doing business, my company pays for it and we consider it our cost. I feel like this line of discussion is ridiculous, its obvious that money paid for former military employees counts towards military expenses. Trying to shift it to a separate agency doesnt change that fact.
I feel like I read about the military a lot and pay very close attention to everything they do. Cutting military spending isnt isolationist and it also doesnt make anybody worse off except the military industrial complex. If you want, we can shift 50% of the cut to actually working positively with other nations, would that make you happy or you only want to fund the part that kills people in other nations? I like to cut government down but even moreso I feel a certain moral obligation to not want innocent people to get killed. So I would get satisfaction if we shifted that money to more positive uses even if I dont get the full spending cut. But no, deemo needs to see dead bodies in some muslim nation thousands of miles away from the US, dead bodies of people that never did anything to the US and never were a threat to do anything to the US. That is a great foreign policy according to deemo.
Where does your military knowledge come from? Just do some googling around and you will see plenty of credible sources telling you that an advanced military can fire a bunch of missiles and take out your aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers are for making war on poor nations incapable of defending themselves. The US has used this to keep the military at arms length from the US population while spending tons of money and raking in corrupt money.
You are the socialist, not me buddy. There is nothing more socialist than the US military. I actually want government so small that you can squish it like a bug. You want big government that can do whatever it wants. Funny how the big government lover is calling someone who wants to shrink government a socialist, look in the mirror.
Way off topic - I am clearly not a socialist "buddy". I really do not want big government - I want it for what it was meant for - common defense not the other crap. My knowledge of the military is not from googling - sorry try again.
Way off topic - I am clearly not a socialist "buddy". I really do not want big government - I want it for what it was meant for - common defense not the other crap. My knowledge of the military is not from googling - sorry try again.
You are the one that called me a socialist for wanting to cut government spending as you advocate for government spending. To me, you are a socialist. The military is socialism that is ok with the right. I am the opposite of a socialist, I want government so small it can be squished like a bug.
You havent actually said anything indicating military knowledge. You just say I am wrong. But you are wrong when you say that it would be difficult for an advanced military to destroy US aircraft carriers and you are wrong to say that the VA isnt military spending. Googling takes you to many articles written by military experts. Trying to dismiss it as "googling" as if you cant get good information doing that is wrong.
That sounds reasonable but I am off the Yellen Train after hearing her try to justify passing the law that would require banks to provide account information on anyone with transactions and/or balances of more than $600. What school of fascism did she attend?
She's an idiot and a power mad tyrant like most swamp dwellers. Thomas Jefferson would at the very least fire the lot of them, if not deport them to somewhere they'd like.
You are the one that called me a socialist for wanting to cut government spending as you advocate for government spending. To me, you are a socialist. The military is socialism that is ok with the right. I am the opposite of a socialist, I want government so small it can be squished like a bug.
You havent actually said anything indicating military knowledge. You just say I am wrong. But you are wrong when you say that it would be difficult for an advanced military to destroy US aircraft carriers and you are wrong to say that the VA isnt military spending. Googling takes you to many articles written by military experts. Trying to dismiss it as "googling" as if you cant get good information doing that is wrong.
You sounded like a socialist because proposed cutting the military to fund other stuff - sounds like we agree on a lot except on military spending. Military spending is not socialist - it actually increases US GDP (approx 4.3%) and production (approx 10%) more than the cost associated (approx 3.4%). Common defense was one of the main purposes of the United in United States - the Army, Navy and USMC were actually created/founded before the declaration of independence.
You also said "But no, deemo needs to see dead bodies in some muslim nation thousands of miles away from the US, dead bodies of people that never did anything to the US and never were a threat to do anything to the US. That is a great foreign policy according to deemo." - that is very hypocritical, I never said anything of the sort. As a matter of fact - that is the opposite of my feelings and what I said - you just made stuff up that was false. I served in the Middle East in Muslim nations several times and have worked closely with those you say "I want to see dead", not even close to correct.
As far as military knowledge, I spent 40 years evaluating systems for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. You were the one that brought up googling - not me - like I said, My knowledge of the military is not from googling. You also did not read what I wrote - the idea is to prevent attacks, but even if they did take out a carrier, it would be a hollow victory.
You sounded like a socialist because proposed cutting the military to fund other stuff - sounds like we agree on a lot except on military spending. Military spending is not socialist - it actually increases US GDP (approx 4.3%) and production (approx 10%) more than the cost associated (approx 3.4%). Common defense was one of the main purposes of the United in United States - the Army, Navy and USMC were actually created/founded before the declaration of independence.
You also said "But no, deemo needs to see dead bodies in some muslim nation thousands of miles away from the US, dead bodies of people that never did anything to the US and never were a threat to do anything to the US. That is a great foreign policy according to deemo." - that is very hypocritical, I never said anything of the sort. As a matter of fact - that is the opposite of my feelings and what I said - you just made stuff up that was false. I served in the Middle East in Muslim nations several times and have worked closely with those you say "I want to see dead", not even close to correct.
As far as military knowledge, I spent 40 years evaluating systems for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. You were the one that brought up googling - not me - like I said, My knowledge of the military is not from googling. You also did not read what I wrote - the idea is to prevent attacks, but even if they did take out a carrier, it would be a hollow victory.
I originally proposed cutting the military period. I did more recently suggest diverting some of the cut to more things that may help us work more productively with other nations. You seemed concerned about being too isolationist, I would imagine you would welcome that offer. But we both know that you seem to only value foreign relations at the point of a gun and anything else doesnt matter to you. I never said we shouldnt have a common defense, I said we can defend the nation spending substantially less.
You have made it very clear that you perceive international relations as killing people in other countries. Otherwise, you wouldnt call me an isolationist for wanting to cut military spending. To even suggest that someone is an isolationist for wanting to cut military spending exposes a pretty messed up view of the US relationship with the rest of the world.
I did bring up googling and I see nothing wrong with it. Let's say someone spent 40 years evaluating military systems wrote about what they learned on a website. People could find that website through google and read what someone with 40 years of experience has to say. You think that person cant learn that way? How does an aircraft carrier prevent attacks? A successful atack on an aircraft carrier wouldnt be difficult for a China or Russia. But sure, its a small victory since aircraft carriers exist to make money for the military industrial complex. Losing them doesnt change the US's ability to protect itself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
